HLIO vs HYFM vs NNBR vs ESAB vs GTLS

For growth investors, Helios Technologies, Inc.

(HLIO) is the stronger pick with 4. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -16. 0% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (HYFM). ESAB Corporation (ESAB) offers the better valuation at 27. 5x trailing P/E (17. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Helios Technologies, Inc. (HLIO) a "Buy" — based on 12 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, ESAB Corporation (ESAB) is the cheapest at 27.

5x versus Chart Industries, Inc. at 628. 5x. On forward P/E, Chart Industries, Inc. is actually cheaper at 16. 4x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Helios Technologies, Inc. wins at 1. 00x versus ESAB Corporation's 2. 44x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, ESAB Corporation (ESAB) delivered a total return of +107.

2%, compared to -99. 8% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (HYFM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GTLS returned +772. 5% versus HYFM's -99. 8%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Chart Industries, Inc.

(GTLS) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 56β versus NN, Inc. 's 2. 04β — meaning NNBR is approximately 266% more volatile than GTLS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Helios Technologies, Inc. (HLIO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 12% versus 144% for NN, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Helios Technologies, Inc.

(HLIO) is pulling ahead at 4. 1% versus -16. 0% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (HYFM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Helios Technologies, Inc. grew EPS 23. 9% year-over-year, compared to -92. 0% for Chart Industries, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, GTLS leads at 38. 3% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

ESAB Corporation (ESAB) is the more profitable company, earning 8.

0% net margin versus -35. 1% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 8. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ESAB leads at 17. 3% versus -27. 4% for HYFM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ESAB leads at 35. 5%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.

By this metric, Helios Technologies, Inc. (HLIO) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 00x versus ESAB Corporation's 2. 44x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Chart Industries, Inc. (GTLS) trades at 16. 4x forward P/E versus 43. 6x for NN, Inc. — 27. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ESAB: 43. 2% to $146. 67.

In this comparison, HLIO (0.

5% yield), ESAB (0. 4% yield), GTLS (0. 3% yield) pay a dividend. HYFM, NNBR do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Chart Industries, Inc.

(GTLS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 56), +772. 5% 10Y return). NN, Inc. (NNBR) carries a higher beta of 2. 04 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (GTLS: +772. 5%, NNBR: -75. 7%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

Both stocks operate in the Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

HLIO pays a dividend while HYFM, NNBR, ESAB, GTLS do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.